MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111530177 · doi:10.1002/cne.22490

Tracer coupling of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells to amacrine cells in the mouse retina

2010· article· en· W2111530177 on OpenAlexafffund
Luis Pérez de Sevilla Müller, Michael Tri H., King‐Wai Yau, Shigang He, William H. Baldridge

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Eye InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRetinaBiologyRetinalRetinal wavesIntrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cellsNeuroscienceAmacrine cellCoupling (piping)Giant retinal ganglion cellsGanglionTRACERRetinal ganglion cellAnatomyPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) are a subtype of ganglion cell in the mammalian retina that expresses the photopigment melanopsin and drives non-image-forming visual functions. Three morphological subtypes of ipRGCs (M1, M2, and M3) have been described based on their dendritic stratifications in the inner plexiform layer (IPL), but the question of their potential interactions via electrical coupling remains unsettled. In this study, we have addressed this question in the mouse retina by, injecting the tracer Neurobiotin into ipRGCs that had been genetically labelled with the fluorescent protein, tdTomato. We confirmed the presence of the M1-M3 subtypes of ipRGCs based on their distinct dendritic stratifications. All three subtypes were tracer coupled to putative amacrine cells situated within the ganglion cell layer (GCL) but not the inner nuclear layer (INL). The cells tracer coupled to the M1 and M2 cells were shown to be widefield GABA-immunoreactive amacrine cells. We found no evidence of homologous tracer coupling of ipRGCs or heterologous coupling to other types of ganglion cells.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations93
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207